Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Trump: I Never Told to McGahn to Fire Mueller; Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Defends Handling of Russia Probe; Judge to Release Coast Guard Officer Accused of Terror Plot. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired April 26, 2019 - 07:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[07:30:08] ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so President Trump is denying that instructed then White House Don McGahn to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. But that's exactly what Don McGahn says happened. And now CNN has learned that President Trump may try to prevent McGahn from complying with a subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee next month.

So let's talk about the legality of all of this. We have CNN Chief Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin with us. OK, the President, as he's so want to do likes to blame the press or things. This one did not originate with the press. This is not unnamed source in some story. Don McGahn testified under oath that the President wanted him to get rid of Robert Mueller. That's the source.

JEFF TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: And then the President told him to deny that he told him to fire Mueller. So, it's sort of a double-barreled level of obstruction of justice that the Mueller report accuses the President of in connection with Don McGahn. It's really the most dramatic episode in the Mueller report.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And perhaps the most clear example of what people could look at and say this was obstruction. This was an abuse of power. Of course Robert Mueller doesn't use those exact words and he told us why. But there is the evidence there. There is the testimony there. There were other people in fact between Reince Priebus and John Kelly and others who were in various rooms at the time who testified to certain things there. So why is this episode potentially so damaging to the President?

TOOBIN: Because it is a very specific example of the President trying to stop the Mueller investigation for an improper purpose. If you believe the Don McGahn's testimony. That he's trying to stop the Mueller investigation because it is getting too close to him. Which is almost exactly the impeachable offense that Richard Nixon was forced out of office because of.

CAMEROTA: Don McGahn is not at the White House anymore. How can the President stop him from going in front of Congress?

TOOBIN: This is why this is such an interesting legal issue because it's one thing for the President not to turn over documents from the White House or prevent White House officials from testifying but McGahn is a private citizen now. However, the executive privilege carries over even if someone leaves the White House. The question is, are these conversations covered by executive privilege. Did the President waive executive privilege by allowing McGahn to testify.

CAMEROTA: But if you waived once -- like if he waived it to have him go talk to Mueller's team that means it's off for good?

TOOBIN: Well, when you allow the report to be published with those conversations in them, that's the real waiver, that's the waiver that I think is the most important. And waiver is waiver. Once you waived any sort of right once, you can't then clasp it back.

What makes the story even more complicated and interesting is what is McGahn's attitude toward all this. Because if McGahn says, I'm happy to testify, what is the President duty, does he go to court to try to get an injunction, to try to stop the testimony. That's a very different posture. And that makes -- and that would be, I think much more difficult.

So I think, you know, the President is in a very strong legal position at least to delay most of the testimony that Congress is asking for from current White House officials. He's in a somewhat weaker position with McGahn. Because McGahn is out and we don't know whether McGahn personally is willing to tell the story.

BERMAN: So it's the personal and the political aspect to this also which is he needs to be careful. The President does and maybe people like Rudy Giuliani saying things that impugn Don McGahn too much because then he might want to go tell a story instead of.

TOOBIN: Well, that's right. And we know that the President is furious at McGahn. We know the Republican National Committee has cut off Jones Day which is McGahn's law firm as it appears. And this is not certain that a kind of punishment to Jones Day for McGahn's presence there. So there is a lot of interpersonal dynamics going on.

BERMAN: Just one more question.

TOOBIN: Yes.

BERMAN: When the President tweeted about this yesterday it also struck me as dancing on a strange line with privilege because if he's saying something didn't happen and the only way you could find out whether it did happen was to talk to the other person, isn't that a waive?

TOOBIN: That is -- I thought the same thing. It's less clear of a waiver. I mean, the President of all people has the right to talk public affairs, has the right to talk about the presidency. So you could argue that that was sort of within his rights.

My point is he'd already waived the executive privilege because of all the interactions with the Mueller report. But, you know, in all the legal fights about testimony before Congress, McGahn is probably the most interesting because there are so many moving parts. The fact that he's gone, the fact that -- you know, the waiver issue. And of course, because the testimony at least as portrayed in the Mueller report is so incriminating.

[07:35:06] CAMEROTA: All right, now we want to play for you something that a Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said yesterday where it sounds like, he's trying to seize back the narrative and not be framed as the villain in some of this. So listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROD ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did pledge to do it right and take it to the appropriate conclusion. I did not promise to report all results to the public, because as my fellow U.S. attorneys know well, grand jury investigations are ex parte proceedings. It is not our job to render conclusive factual findings. We just decide whether it's appropriate to file criminal charges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: It is not our job to render conclusive findings. Why did they do that then?

TOOBIN: Well, because the regulation under which Mueller was appointed does have a provision in it for reporting to the public. It's different from regular U.S. attorneys. When I was a federal prosecutor, the everyday cases I prosecuted, if we didn't file charges, the public was never supposed to learn that. The special counsel law had a special difference from an ordinary case

BERMAN: This seemed to be the beginning of Rod Rosenstein trying to write the Rod Rosenstein narrative.

TOOBIN: But isn't Rod Rosenstein such an interesting figure in all of this? Certainly the most famous deputy attorney general in history.

BERMAN: Yeah.

TOOBIN: You know, liberals love him in some ways, they hate him in others. Conservatives love him and hate him. I mean, he after all is the person who picked Robert Mueller out of all the people in the United States to be the special counsel here. He apparently considered wearing a wire on the President. He was so concerned by the President's behavior. But he was the person who stood by Barr when Barr exonerated the President for obstruction of justice at least in their opinion. A lot of people will be interested in talking to him.

BERMAN: And now quoting Trump legal theory last night during the speech, fascinating.

CAMEROTA: He's a complicated character.

BERMAN: Jeffrey, thank you.

CAMEROTA: Thank you, Jeffrey, very much

BERMAN: What's next?

CAMEROTA: Well, I think something very fascinating is going to be coming up on "New Day."

BERMAN: I think something coming up next. Did the United States pay millions to North Korea for Otto Warmbier's return? President Trump just responded to this story moment ago. We'll tell what he said, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:40:55] BERMAN: All right, happening now, President Trump with his first statement moments ago about the $2 million hospital bill that North Korea presented to the United States for the care of American Otto Warmbier. Warmbier spent 17 months in a North Korean prison and was returned to the United States in a comatose state. He died days later.

This is what the President just wrote in part. He said, "No money was paid to North Korea for Otto Warmbier, not two million dollars, not anything else."

CNN's Kylie Atwood live in Washington with more. It was only 24 hours ago, we learned that North Korea ever tried to present this bill.

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: And a shocking bill at that. Of course this was an awful situation where Otto Warmbier, a 22-year-old, came back after being unjustly detained in North Korea for over a year. He was comatose and died days later.

So it is really remarkable that the North Koreans had the audacity to hand the U.S. a $2 million bill. Now, we have reported yesterday that the Trump administration hadn't paid the bill. And that matches what President Trump is tweeting out this morning.

He's making allegations that previous administrations, the Obama administration specifically had paid ransoms for Americans who were unjustly detained abroad.

Now, there is an interesting case to look at. There was a case in 2016 where money was paid around the time of the release of four Americans from Iran. But the Trump administration is saying that was ransom. The Obama administration said it wasn't ransom.

But I do want to point out that Secretary Pompeo has said just recently the Trump administration never paid ransom. And that if they did, it would encourage these actors to be taking more Americans and that it would give them more money to do so.

I want to transition to something else this morning. Coming out of the White House, our reporting tells us that the Trump administration is hoping for a big nuclear deal with China and Russia. This is big. We have heard Trump mention it. He hinted at it a few times. But the national security team at the White House is conducting an intense interagency process right now. And they are looking at the options for how President Trump could pursue such a plan. It is really worrying nuclear experts, however, who think that this would mean ditching the new start treaty, which is a signature pact between the U.S. and Russia when it comes to nuclear arms. It will expire in 2021 if it isn't extended.

CAMEROTA: Kylie, thank you very much for all of that reporting.

Now to this strange development in a story that we've told you about recently. A federal judge says a coast guard officer, that coast guard officer who was accused of plotting a domestic terror attack can be released from detention pending his trial.

Lieutenant Christopher Hassan was indicted on weapons and drug charges but did not face any charges related to terrorism or attempted murder appoint his public defender used to argue that his detention is unlawful.

Joining us now to talk about this is CNN Counterterrorism Analyst Phil Mudd and CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson. Guys, this is confusing because, let me just remind everybody of what this person is accused of, what prosecutors say that he did.

Amassing an arsenal of guns and tactical gear, searching online for are Supreme Court justices protected and their home addresses, Hassan espoused extremist and white supremacist views. He searched online for the best gun with which to kill African-Americans. This is according to court documents. He had a hit list, you remember that included prominent Democratic politicians as well as several journalists at CNN and MSNBC, he searched for a white homeland. It goes on and on and on. There was combat gear that was found.

Phil, why would a judge release him?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: I mean, if you look at the question about connections with terrorism if -- in the cases I used to deal with, let's say, Al Qaeda or ISIS. If you had email for example from a subject that is a U.S. citizen going to an Al Qaeda recruiter saying I want to join your terror organization, so I can continue to fight, you can go to a judge and say not only does this person have access to weapons and explosives, this person clear indications that he want to join an international terrorist organization.

[07:45:19] I mean, Joey would know better than I but I'm looking at the case saying the judge doesn't have that kind of information tying this person to stuff beyond weapons and drugs. So the judge is saying if you can't make the tie to terrorism, I'm limited in how much we can incarcerate this person before their trial.

CAMEROTA: All right, isn't that arsenal of weapons, Joey, enough to keep somebody up to the trial?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So taking a step back, Alisyn, you know, terrorism -- and Phil makes an excellent point. But terrorism isn't the standard. The standard before going in front of a judge saying, hey look, I want you to be detained or released is not whether you are a terrorist. The standard is, is there a condition or combination of conditions that can ensure the safety of other people?

Now, from what you listed, the dynamics of attacking journalists potentially --

CAMEROTA: And the pictures. I mean, this is an arsenal of weapons that he has.

JACKSON: A 100%, the cache of weapons that he has, et cetera. So in the event that you're making the case to a judge is a prosecuted that, hey something is amiss here. And by releasing this individual other people could be in jeopardy. That alone, if there is a danger to the community where release could not ensure people's safety, that in and of itself is sufficient for keeping him detained.

CAMEROTA: Phil, he searched online for these things. White homeland, second when are whites going to wake up and, please god let there be a race war. I mean, obviously -- well, it sounds as though there could be a danger to the public.

MUDD: Not sounds as though. There is a danger to the public. One of the most difficult things to interpret in these situations, Alisyn, is not what you see in the photographs, the opioids in the House. The thousand rounds of ammunition, the searches, it's what's going on in someone's mind.

When I saw the case over the past few weeks and over the past day when the judge ordered the release, I'm looking at the hardest question in the case which is intent. When I see the searches that tells me this person is not only thinking about doing something, not only amassing weapons, but they have crossed the bridge to actually taking steps to take action. That's researching how to conduct an act. That's very difficult to understand in a case. And if I were looking at this in front of a judge, I'd say, we not only have someone thinking about this, we have someone taking half a step toward action. This one makes me really nervous.

JACKSON: Yes.

CAMEROTA: What's the judge thinking, Joey?

JACKSON: Well, look, you know, at the end of the day, let me play defense attorney for a minute. And what happens here is that judge says, look, you are entitled to have bail. The fact is, is that in the event --

CAMEROTA: But not everyone is.

JACKSON: Not everyone is, right?

CAMEROTA: If they are a public danger.

JACKSON: Not supporting this at all, right? Just reviewing the fact of this.

CAMEROTA: Yeah. JACKSON: I certainly stand on the issue that if you are a danger to the public, you should be detained. However, you go back to the issues of presumption of innocence. You go back to the issues of if you are innocent until presumed guilty and the judge said in case, I am going to ensure that there are conditions wherein you are overseen, overlooked and the public is protected.

CAMEROTA: I get it but some people are held until their trial, OK.

JACKSON: Yes, they are. That's right.

CAMEROTA: And so, doesn't this guy meet the criteria of things that you have seen, they have held other defendants?

JACKSON: In fairness by any reasonable standard given the accusation here, given the fact that there are three decades of jail that he's looking at, given the cache of weapons, giving what his mental status is, or state is in terms of what he intended to do, given the white supremacy that he was standing up and the target list and things he was parroting. I do believe that he would meet the standard. I do believe he should be detained and I am somewhat baffled by this decision. The judge decided to go the other way. Federal judges have a vast amount of discretion in doing and ultimately this is what the judge thought was appropriate following a hearing.

CAMEROTA: Phil, should people feel safe with this guy outside of jail even if he's on supervised release?

MUDD: Boy, I wouldn't. But I mean I'm looking at a 99% solution. Can I guarantee 99% and not the last 1%? They're going to do everything with this guy from ankle bracelet to ensuring he doesn't leave the house to confiscating weapons to controlling what kind of internet access he has. But if he snips that ankle bracelet at 2:00 a.m. and goes out the back door and you don't have 24/7 eyes on him, man.

JACKSON: That's the issue.

MUDD: I don't know how you are not nervous about this one.

CAMEROTA: Phil Mudd, Joey Jackson, thank you both very much.

MUDD: Thank you.

JACKSON: Thank you, Alisyn.

BERMAN: Pretty sobering.

President Trump is building a wall. But it's the stone wall around his administration. Sort of a metaphor here. Preventing anyone on his team from testifying before Congress. What's next for this self- made constitutional crisis? We have a reality check next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:53:46] CAMEROTA: All right, so President Trump's strategy for the House Democrats trying to investigate him now seems to boil down to three words. Obstruct, delay, deny. But the President claims the kind of oversight that he is facing never happened to President Obama, is that true?

As John Avlon is about to tell us in our Reality Check, he's going to look into.

JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So Donald Trump is definitely building a wall. But this one seems to be around his administration. Yes, one week after the redacted Mueller report was released it's become clear that stonewalling is Donald Trump's strategy for dealing with Democrats going forward.

In the past week alone Trump has sued to stop the release of his financial records, tried to block the testimony of his former White House Counsel Don McGahn, prevent a White House security director from testifying about why some 25 staffers were given security clearances despite denials including Jared Kushner and his justice department, even ordered the head of the civil rights division to refuse a subpoena on the citizenship question one day after the case went to the Supreme Court.

Team Trump has refused a flurry of subpoenas. And President's lawyers have tried to justify the move by saying, Democrats have declared, all out war against the President.

So it looks like total obstruction will be the way forward until Election Day 2020. Congratulations, everybody. It's an extension of Trump's advice from his old mentor Roy Cohn, who first fun and for me is a lawyer for Joe McCarthy and then a mob. Always attack never defend.

[07:55:11] But Trump likes his attacks come with a victim card. So he's vetted POV very clearly. "Never happened before, unlimited procedural harassment. Republicans never did this to President Obama." How about that one?

So we know history is not the President's thing. But this is really recent history. Last six years of Obama's terms there were at least five Republican congressional investigations conducted over 10 different committees. Things like Solyndra solar company, the gun tracking scheme known as fast and furious, alleged political bias at the IRS, the Benghazi hearings. And the very flood rollout of the healthcare.gov site. All of these where pumped up on conservative media but none of them were in same universe. It's hostile foreign power interfering within election to help a particular candidate.

Yes, it's true that Republicans never had to sue to get Barack Obama's tax information but that's because he turned it over like every other presidents since Nixon, except Trump. But there's at least one Republican victory from those years that's directly relevant.

So during the Fast and Furious hearings the Obama Justice Department decided to GOP's subpoenas for documents citing executive privilege. They went to court and Judge Amy Berman Jackson who's overseeing the Roger Stone case, denied the Obama administration's claims. Look, situational ethics are the way of Washington. But didn't always used to be this ay. The unilateral subpoena powers that Democrats are using today were first put into effect by, you guess it, Republicans during the Clinton era. That's what Republican Dan Burton weaponized the House Oversight Committee to go after Clinton, showing more than a thousand unilateral subpoenas over five years. 2015 Republicans expanded unilateral subpoena power, now 14 committee chairmen can do it.

Keep in mind that after all those investigations President Obama left office with only -- the only administration in the last 50 years to have no senior members of its staff indicted or convicted of a crime.

Fact matter. Perspective is needed. And we're being set up for an epic clash between the balance of powers. Donald Trump's stonewalling strategy may meet defeat in courts. But the meantime his hope is to steal for time, claim prison (ph), personal harassment and hope that if he wins re-election statute of limitations for any possible crimes will run out by the time he walks out of the White House. And that's your reality check.

BERMAN: All right, John, thank you very much. Delays work. Delays work. All right, now that he's finally in the race, the comics taking aim at Joe Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY FALLON, COMEDIAN: This afternoon we stopped at a pizza place in Delaware where he talked to some reporters. I think he got distracted. Check this out.

JOE BIDEN, U.S. FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: Look, we are putting together, I think, a pretty good staff and capability and websites. Hey, man, how are you doing? How are you doing, man? I'm going to get some pizza.

FALLON: He was like the only way we'll have pizza in the Middle East oh, look calzone.

TREVOR NOAH, COMEDIAN: Many are saying that Democrats are likely to vote for Joe Biden partly because of how progressive he's become and partly because how good he is at getting under Trump's skin.

BIDEN: The press always asks me, don't I wish I were debating him. No, I wish we were in high school, I could take him behind the gym. That's what I wish.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That would not last long. Go like this. He's down. And he'll never get up.

NOAH: Old men fight. Old men fight. Old men fight. This would be hilarious. These two dudes fighting. It's like let's get ready to stumble!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Very funny.

BERMAN: Very funny and predictable to a certain extent. But I think the Biden team, Joe Biden himself regrets the gym statement from before. I think he's trying to avoid the gym.

CAMEROTA: I guess so. But is that the worse thing that's ever been said on a campaign trail.

BERMAN: Not suggesting it.

CAMEROTA: OK.

BERMAN: And not suggesting I wouldn't like to see some --

CAMEROTA: Version of that.

BERMAN: Yes, perhaps nonviolent, noncriminal version of it.

CAMEROTA: Well, you will during the debates.

BERMAN: Perhaps.

CAMEROTA: You will.

BERMAN: Well, if they face off against each other.

CAMEROTA: Great one.

OK, the 2020 race enters a new phase. "New Day" continues right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This was his first fundraiser. He talked about the concerns that the values of this country is at stake.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is a sense of worry among Trump aides. The President often asks about Biden.

TRUMP: When you look at Joe he's not the brightest bulb in the group.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's one thing to say I'm sorry for what happened to you, it's another to say I'm sorry what die.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe Biden has questions to answer just like every other candidates.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President says he's going to block all of these subpoenas. They're saying that he has a right to do this.

TRUMP: I can say, nobody will testify. They do what I say.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: McGahn is no longer his employees. The President has no authority to order him not to appear before Congress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is "New Day" with Alisyn Camerota and John Berman. CAMEROTA: Good morning. Welcome to your "New Day". Happy Friday. It is Friday, April 26th, 8:00 in the east.

And we do begin with the 2020 race. It has changed, big time with former Vice President Joe Biden now in the contest. Biden directly taking aim at President Trump and the President hitting back.

Now some of the Biden's Democratic rivals are pouncing on his record.

[08:00:00]